Order
1. By our order dated 4-3-2014 (2014) 8 SCC 800 we had directed Mr Bagaria, learned ASG to file an affidavit whether any assistance was being provided to the Enforcement Directorate by the investigating agency concerned in West Bengal in connection with the ongoing investigation. An affidavit has accordingly been filed by the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement stating that pursuant to the appointment of a Nodal Officer the Enforcement Directorate has requested for copies of the relevant documents set out in Para 12 of the affidavit in terms of a letter dated 7-3-2014. Mr Mukul Gupta, learned ASG appearing for the Enforcement Directorate submits that according to his instructions information demanded by the Directorate has started pouring in w.e.f 11-3-2014.
2. An affidavit has been filed even by the State of West Bengal pursuant to our order mentioned above in which the purchase value of the property acquired by Saradha Group of Companies has been estimated Rs 40,00,00,000 (Rupees forty crores only) as against a total collection of Rs 24,60,00,00,000 (Rupees two thousand four hundred sixty crores only) made by the said companies. Mr C.S Vaidyanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the State however points out that in terms of the information available from the software seized from the companies the investment on land, buildings, flats, etc. goes up to Rs 1,10,00,00,000 (Rupees one hundred ten crores only). That figure does not obviously tally with the result of the investigation which reveals acquisition of properties worth only Rs 40 to 45 crores. The discrepancy according to Mr Vaidyanathan may be on account of the fact that a large number of properties referred to in the affidavit have been acquired by the companies on the basis of powers of attorney which do not indicate the value of the property although according to Mr Vaidyanathan such powers of attorney were only a device to acquire the ownership of the property on payment of consideration settled for the same. Be that as it may the fact remains that there is a major discrepancy between the amount said to have been invested by the companies on real estate and that found by the investigating agency to have been actually invested. This may call for further investigation by the investigating agency. Beyond that we do not consider it necessary at this stage to say anything.
3. We had also by our earlier order directed the State to file sample copies of the charge-sheets which the State claims to have already filed before the competent courts. Some of these charge-sheets along with three sample charge-sheets have been filed by Mr Vaidyanathan. We have been taken through the contents of the charge-sheets which reveal that the investigation by the State Police has remained confined to individual cases of deposits made by the complainants. The investigating agency has in all these cases verified the deposits and concluded that the company officials have committed offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 409 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860.
4. Mr Bhattacharya, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners argues that all the charge-sheets which the respondents claim to have filed merely deal with individual cases of deposits made by the depositors and do not deal with the larger issue of conspiracy which has wide-ranging ramifications involving several people who have been either party to the conspiracy or beneficiaries thereof. He urged that the investigating agency was deliberately avoiding to investigate that vital aspect which is not only crucial but essential for unravelling the nature and the magnitude of the scam. Mr Vaidyanathan, however, urged that although the charge-sheets already filed deal with individual cases of depositors who have been swindled of their money, the larger conspiracy angle is being investigated separately in an FIR registered with Bidhannagar Police Station. He urged that given ten days' time he will file an affidavit setting out the particulars of the FIR in which that larger aspect is being examined and the progress so far made in that regard.
5. In the circumstances therefore we adjourn these proceedings to 9-4-2014 with a direction that the respondent State shall file an additional affidavit setting out the details of the FIR in which the larger conspiracy angle is investigated as also the progress made in that case. The affidavit shall also set out the basis on which larger conspiracy angle was left to be investigated in that particular FIR. The trail of money collected by the companies also may require to be identified and discovered in the said FIR.
6. Needful be done within ten days with an advance copy to the counsel opposite who may respond to the same.
7. Post on 9-4-2014.
WP (C) No. 413 of 2013
8. Mr Suresh Chandra Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, has today filed a list of as many as 11 companies which are, according to him, involved in a big way in the Chit Fund Scam in the State of Odisha. He submits that illegal activities of these companies have inter-State ramifications apart from the magnitude of the scams running into more than Rs 500 crores in each case.
9. Mr Shibashish Misra, learned counsel for the State of Odisha, also filed a list of 37 companies, including M/s Saradha Group of Companies, which according to him, are being investigated and where inter-State ramifications have been noticed.
10. A comparison of the two lists filed before us shows that out of the 11 companies, mentioned in the list filed by Mr Tripathy, four are already included in the list furnished by the State Counsel. The list furnished by the State counsel does not however include (1) Artha Tawta Group, (2) Adarsha Group, (3) Seashore, (4) ABC Indya, (5) Safex India (P) Ltd., (6) Swastik India Multi State Credit Cooperative and (7) Nabadiganta Capital Services Ltd. According to the State counsel the activities of these companies do not have any inter-State ramifications.
11. Be that as it may, we see no reason why the information, which we propose to direct, should not relate even to the companies, mentioned above in addition to those mentioned in the list filed by the State Counsel. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties, we make it clear that the present proceedings, seeking transfer of investigation of the pending cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), shall remain confined to a total 44 companies (out of which 37 are mentioned in the list furnished by the State counsel and the remaining 7 mentioned in the list supplied by Mr Tripathy).
12. The State of Odisha has filed some affidavits in these proceedings but the information available therefrom appears to be scanty. In the circumstances, we direct the State of Odisha to furnish the following information on affidavit:
(1) The total number of companies involved in the Chit Fund Scam in the State of Odisha.
(2) The total amount allegedly collected by the companies involved in such scam.
(3) The total amount allegedly collected by the 44 companies, referred to in the list furnished by the State counsel and the remaining 7 mentioned by us in the body of this order.
(4) The total number of claims made by the depositors before “Justice R.K Patra Commission”, set up by the State Government.
(5) The total number of properties, seized or sealed by the investigating agency in regard to the 44 companies mentioned above, and the purchase value of such properties.
(6) The total amount so far paid to the investors either under the orders of the Commission or otherwise.
(7) The total number of charge-sheets so far filed. Three sample copies of the charge-sheets to be enclosed with the affidavit. The affidavit will also indicate whether the larger conspiracy angle is being investigated and if so, furnish a list of such cases and the progress made in that regard.
(8) The total investments, in real estate or otherwise, made by the 44 companies, referred to above, and the steps that have been taken for seizure and sealing of the said properties.
13. The needful shall be done by the State of Odisha within ten days from today with an advance copy to Mr Tripathy.
14. Post for continuation of arguments on Wednesday, 9-4-2014.
Court Masters